9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1990 (2) TMI 154 - SC - Indian LawsLegality of the orders dated October 11 1988 passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 for the detention of the appellants have been dismissed challenged Held that - In the grounds of detention the detaining authority has only mentioned the fact that the appellants has been remanded to judicial custody till October 13, 1988. The grounds of detention do not show that the detaining authority apprehended that the further remand would not be granted by the Magistrate on October 13 1988 and the appellants would be released from custody on October 13, 1988. Nor is there any material in the grounds of detention which may lend support to such an apprehension. Also the bail applications moved by the appellants had been rejected by the Sessions Judge a few days prior to the passing of the order of detention on October 11, 1988. The grounds of detention disclose that the appellants were engaged in activities which are offences punishable with imprisonment under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. It cannot therefore be said that there was a reasonable prospect of the appellants not being further remanded to custody on October 13, 1988 and their being released from custody at the time when the order for preventive detention of that appellant was passed on October 11, 1988. In the circumstances we are of the view that the order for detention of the appellants cannot be sustained and must be set aside and the appellants should be released forthwith.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention orders under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. 2. Whether a detention order can be validly passed against individuals already in custody. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Detention Orders: The appeals challenge the legality of detention orders dated October 11, 1988, issued under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The appellants were detained based on the detaining authority's satisfaction that their detention was necessary to prevent them from engaging in the transportation and abetting in the export inter-state of Psychotropic Substances. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petitions challenging these orders, leading the appellants to seek special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on January 11, 1990, allowed the appeals, set aside the detention orders, and directed the release of the appellants, stating that a reasoned judgment would follow. 2. Detention of Individuals Already in Custody: The primary issue was whether the detention orders could be validly passed against the appellants, who were already in judicial custody on the date of the detention orders. The appellants argued that since they were in custody, there was no apprehension of them engaging in prejudicial activities, rendering the detention orders invalid. The Supreme Court reviewed several precedents to address this issue: - Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr.: The Court held that the validity of a detention order against a person in custody depends on the circumstances of each case, emphasizing the proximity of time and the likelihood of release. - Masood Alam v. Union of India: The Court ruled that a detention order is not invalid merely because the person is in custody if the earlier custody is likely to cease soon. - Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan: It was held that if there is no immediate prospect of release, the authority cannot be satisfied about the necessity of preventive detention. - Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir: The Court emphasized that the detaining authority must disclose awareness of the person's existing custody and provide compelling reasons for preventive detention. - Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad: The Court noted that if the detaining authority is satisfied that the person is likely to be released on bail, preventive detention can be justified. - Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah: The Court held that merely the possibility of bail is insufficient for preventive detention; there must be credible information or cogent reasons. - Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra: The Court reiterated that imminent release and the necessity of detention must be demonstrated. - Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad: The Court stated that without imminent release, preventive detention should not be exercised. - Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P.: The Court stressed that the possibility of bail alone is not sufficient; there must be credible information that the person would engage in prejudicial activities if released. - Vijay Kumar v. Union of India: Two facts must appear: awareness of the existing detention and compelling reasons justifying further detention. - N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu: The Court summarized that subsisting custody does not invalidate preventive detention if there is a likelihood of release and a need to prevent prejudicial activities. In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the grounds of detention did not show that the detaining authority apprehended the appellants' release on October 13, 1988. The bail applications had been rejected, and there was no reasonable prospect of release. Thus, the Court concluded that there were no compelling reasons justifying the detention orders while the appellants were in custody. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the detention orders, directing the release of the appellants. The judgment clarified that the decision does not preclude reconsideration of preventive detention if the appellants are released from custody in the future, based on the same material, in accordance with the law.
|
